When a regular civil suit is already pending in a court of competent civil jurisdiction and all disputes regarding possession can be adjudicated and decided there, inter alia criminal proceedings under Section 145 of the Code are obviously not maintainable.

1. :- This revision petition is directed against the order dated the 10th August, 1985 of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, quashing the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate, Jodhpur under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also setting aside the order of attachment passed by the said Magistrate on April 20, 1985.

2. The dispute relates to the property known as Ashram in Shramik Pura, Jodhpur. Members of the Vishwakarma Samaj claim it to be the property of the Samaj and allege that Baba Bajarang Das was only a Pujari for the temple whereas Baba Bajrangdas claims the property in his own rights. The Vishwakarma Samaj calls the property as Chartravas.

3. The proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code commenced on April 17, 1983 on the report of Baba Garibdas at the Police Station, Shashtrinagar, to the effect that Baba Bajrangdas had gone out of station on April 3, 1983 and that in his absence 30-40 persons came there and asked the complainant tp leave the premises lest he would be killed. On April 19, 1983, Shyam Sunder petitioner also filed an application before the police that Baba Bajrangdas on investigation from Jadish, Sugan Singh and others wanted to unlawfully take possession of the temple which is used for the students both as school and Chhatravas. It was further alleged that Baba Bajrangdas had gone some where on April 3, 1983 and that in his absence Baba Garibdas was creating trouble and did not allow the complainant and the members of the Samaj to enter the premises. After investigation, the police filed a complaint in the court of the Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate Jodhpur on April 20, 1933 on the allegations that Baba Bajrangdas had left Jodhpur on April 3, 1983 and Baba Garibdas had also gone by locking six rooms of the temple and by handing over the keys to the police. It was alleged that in case party No. 1 consisting of Bajrangdas and others would try to enter the disputed property, the party No. 2 consisting of Shyam Sunder and others would put resistance and this dispute was likely to cause breach of peace. On this, the Executive Magistrate, by his order dated the 28th April, 1983, directed that the case be registered and notices issued to the parties. The Magistrate further directed that the disputed property be attached and the Tehsildar, Jodhpur be appointed as its receiver.

4. Aggrieved by this, the party No. 1, i.e., Bajrangdas and others preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, who by his order dated the 10th August, 1983 quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code and also set aside the order of attachment. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the proceedings initiated by the Magistrate under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code were uncalled for and invalid, and consequently the order of attachment passed under Section 146 Criminal Procedure Code was illegal and not justified. The learned Sessions Judge further directed that the possession of the property be handed over by the police to Baba Bajrangdas who was in possession of the same on April 3, 1983 and had given the keys to Baba Garibdas. Against this, the party No. 2, i.e., Shyara Sunder and others have come in revision to this Court.

5. I have heard Mr. M.C. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Prakash Tatia, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4 and the Public Prosecutor for the State of Rajasthan. Mr. Tatia has urged that in respect of this very property a suit for injunction is pending in the court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur-- Suit No. 88 of 1982 Bajrangdas v. Vishwa Karma Boarding House and, therefore, the present proceedings under Section 145 of the Code were plainly not maintainable. We also urged that an interim injunction had also been passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate in regard to the possession of the dispu